It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ZikhaN
Um, what is that???
If you shine a light on your moving hand, its shadow on a distant wall can move at a velocity greater than the hand itself. If you move the wall farther away and tilt it obliquely the shadow will move much much faster. The speed of light is not a limitation for such moving shadows. Indeed, faster than light motion is a rather common phenomenon yet is not a violation of relativity since mass/energy itself is not also moving at that speed. Therefore non-material points or features that do not transport energy are exempt from relativity’s prohibition. This is called the “motion of effects” (Steinberg, 2000) which includes other events like the moving point of intersection of a closing pair of scissors and a moving spot of laser light projected from the earth to the moon. In all of these examples there is no discrete object that is moving at that speed. There is no way to encode information in the speedy spot of light and there are no photons that are traveling greater than the speed of light as well. The same is true for the bizarre features of light in the cesium experiment. Wang and his colleagues themselves agree that fundamental laws of physics are not being overturned by their research.
Originally posted by Electro38
Sorry if this might be slightly off topic. Can gravity bend time (or slow time)?
If so, since speed is dependent on time, couldn't the speed of any partical be influenced by gravity? Light is made of particals (quanta), so then couldn't the speed of light be influenced by gravity, hence in a vacuum such as space?
I don't study physics, maybe some of my assumptions are completely wrong, that's why I add the questions marks, I really don't know.
Here's something I found interesting:
[edit on 31-8-2007 by Electro38]
Originally posted by squiz
Einstein began with aether then threw it out, although unproven, with it special relativity fails. The presence of any prevailing field would render it obsolete, magnetic fields could be considered currents or vortices within the ether, space is filled with magnetic fields.
More and more researchers are reconsidering the aether, after all what is exactly waving in an electromagnetic wave?
I think the idea of an aether is more logical than the concept of space time or space fabric.
Originally posted by blue bird
Michelson - Morley experiment which has been repeated many times ( also with updated equipment and variable): NO aether was found!
The developments reported herein hae enormous significance for fundamental physics - essentially the whole paradigm of 20th century physics collapses."
Also, I am not aware that GPS instruments have detected any anisotropy in the speed of light.
Years after Einstein’s death, decision is still in favour of Sagnac and the absolute nature of rotation. When satellite clocks are synchronized, corrections are made using speed of light either greater or less than c. And today spaceships, satellites and airplanes all carry Laser-ring-gyroscopes that use the non-relativistic Sagnac effect to tell the speed between the plane and the rotating Earth, with accuracies down to nanoseconds
Originally posted by curiousbeliever
In fact, we can't even prove that we exist because we could be living in a simulated universe... (there is actually some plausability to the movie, The Matrix)
Originally posted by Motion-Man
Apparently light can be slowed down and sped up. So if it can be altered, then how can scientists be sure that stars are as far as they say they are? To my understanding, evaluating how distant a star is depends on the light coming from it. So if it can be sped up or slowed down, then perhaps stars are merely pinpoints of light, or are MUCH more massive than estimated. Stars could even be in different positions because the light could be bent and curved to fly in another direction, by obstacles or even gravity. Light is definately not a constant, therefore many of our theories involving the constant of the speed of light are wrong and must be scrapped or re-written with something that works. As far as we know, all the light coming from the heavens could be part of one giant light "source" that is being fragmented by "environmental conditions". So tell me, do you agree that we may be wrong about many, if not all, distances between us and other heavenly bodies, and using the distance of stars (according to the speed of light) to prove theories is wrong?
Check out these links:
or go search for it on google.